LIGHT AND SHADE.
Jews under Mahometan Rulers--Expulsion from Vienna--Jews
admitted by Elector Frederick William into the Mark of
Brandenburg--Charge of Child-murder in Metz--Milder Treatment
of Jews throughout Europe--Christian Champions of the Jews:
Jurieu, Oliger Pauli, and Moses Germanus--Predilection of
Christians for the Study of Jewish Literature--Richard Simon
--Interest taken by Charles XI in the Karaites--Peringer and
Jacob Trigland--German Attacks on Judaism by Wülfer, Wagenseil,
and Eisenmenger--Circumstances of the Publication of _Judaism
Unmasked_--The _Alenu_ Prayer--Surenhuysius, Basnage, Unger,
Wolf, and Toland.
1669-1700 C. E.
The princes and nations of Europe and Asia showed great consideration
in not disturbing the Messianic farce of the Jews, who were quietly
allowed to make themselves ridiculous. A pause had come in the
constantly recurring persecution of the Jews, which did not, however,
last very long. The regular succession of accusations, vexations, and
banishments soon re-commenced. The contrast between the followers of
Mahomet and those of Jesus is very striking. In Turkey the Jews were
free from persecution, in spite of their great excitement, and absurd
dreams of a national Messiah. In Africa, Sid Gailand and later Muley
Arshid, sultan of Tafilet, Fez, and Morocco, oppressed the Jews, partly
on account of their activity, partly from rapacity. But this ceased
with the next sovereign, Muley Ismail. He was a patron of the Jews, and
entrusted several with important posts. He had two Jewish advisers,
Daniel Toledano of Miquenes, a friend of Jacob Sasportas, a Talmudist
and experienced in state affairs, and Joseph Maimaran, likewise from
Miquenes.
Within Christendom, on the contrary, Jews were esteemed and treated as
men only in Holland; in other states they were regarded as outcasts,
who had no rights, and no claim to compassion. Spain again led the way
in decreeing banishments. That unfortunate country, becoming more and
more depopulated through despotism, superstition, and the Inquisition,
was then ruled by a foolish, fanatical woman, the dowager-regent Maria
Anna of Austria, who had made her father-confessor, the German Jesuit
Neidhard, inquisitor-general and minister with unlimited powers.
Naturally, no toleration of other religions could be suffered at this
bigoted court. There were still Jews in some parts of the monarchy, in
the north-western corner of Africa, in Oran, Maxarquivir, and other
cities. Many had rendered considerable services to the Spanish crown,
in times of peace and war, against the native Arabs, or Moors, who
endured with inward rage the dominion of the cross. The families of
Cansino and Sasportas, the former royal interpreters, or dragomans, for
the province of Oran, had distinguished themselves especially by their
fidelity and devotion to Spain; and their conduct had been recognized
by Philip IV, the husband of Maria Anna, in a special letter.
Nevertheless, the queen-dowager suddenly ordered the banishment of the
Jews from the district, because she could no longer tolerate people of
this race in her realm. At the urgent request of Jewish grandees the
governor allowed the Jews eight days' grace during the Passover, and
admitted that they were banished, not because of misconduct or treason,
but simply on account of the regent's intolerance (end of April, 1669).
They were obliged to sell their possessions in haste at ridiculous
prices. The exiles settled in the district of Savoy, at Villafranca,
near Nice.
Like mother, like daughter. At about this time the banishment of
Jews from Vienna and the arch-duchy of Austria was decreed at the
instigation of the daughter of the Spanish regent, the empress
Margaret, an ally of the Jesuits. The emperor did not easily allow
himself to be prejudiced against Jews, from whom he derived a certain
revenue. The community of Vienna alone, grown to nearly two thousand
souls, paid a yearly tax of 10,000, and the country community of 4,000,
florins. Including the income from Jews in other places, the emperor
received from them 50,000 florins annually. But an empress need not
trouble herself about finance; she can follow the inclinations of
her heart, and Margaret's heart, filled with Jesuitism, hated Jews
profoundly, and her father-confessor strengthened the feeling. Having
met with an accident at a ball, she wished to testify her gratitude to
heaven which had wonderfully preserved her, and could find no means
more acceptable to God than the misery of Jews. More urgently than
before she entreated her imperial consort to banish from the capital
and the country the Jews, described by her father-confessor as outcasts
of hell, and she received his promise. With trumpet-sound it was made
known in Vienna (February 14, 1670) that by the emperor's command the
Jews were to quit the city within a few months on pain of death. They
left no measure untried to avert the stroke. Often before had similar
resolutions been recalled by Austrian emperors. The Jews cited the
privileges accorded them in writing, and the services which they had
rendered the imperial house. They offered large sums of money (there
were very rich court Jews at Vienna), used the influence of persons
connected with the court, and, after a solemn service in honor of the
recovery of the emperor from sickness, presented him as he left the
church with a large gold cup, and the empress with a handsome silver
basin and jug. The presents were accepted, but the command was not
recalled.
At Vienna and at the court there was no prospect of a change of
purpose; the Jesuits had the upper hand through the empress and her
confessor. The community of Vienna in despair thought to avert the evil
by another, roundabout course. The Jews of Germany had felt sincere
sympathy for their brethren, and had implored heaven by prayer and
fasting to save them. The Jews of Vienna could count confidently upon
their zeal. Therefore, in a pitiful letter to the most influential
and perhaps the richest Jew of that time, Isaac (Manoel) Texeira,
the esteemed agent of Queen Christina, they begged him to exert
his influence with temporal and church princes, through them to
make Empress Margaret change her mind. Texeira had previously taken
active steps in that direction, and he promised to continue them.
He had written to some Spanish grandees with whom he stood in close
connection to use their influence with the empress's confessor. The
queen of Sweden, who, after her romantic conversion to Catholicism,
enjoyed great esteem in the Catholic world, led Texeira to hope that,
by letters addressed to the papal nuncio, to the empress, and to her
mother, the Spanish regent, she might prevent the banishment of the
Austrian Jews. The Jews of Rome also did their part to save their
threatened brethren. But all these efforts led to nothing. Unhappily
there had just been a papal election at Rome after the death of Clement
IX, so that the head of the church, though Jews were tolerated in his
states, could not be prevailed upon to assume a decided attitude.
Emperor Leopold remained firm, and disposed of the houses of the Jews
before they had left them. He was only humane enough to order, under
pain of severe punishment, that no harm be done to the departing Jews.
So the Jews had to submit to the iron will of necessity, and grasp
their pilgrims' staffs. When 1,400 souls had fallen into distress,
or at least into an anxious plight, and many had succumbed, the
remainder, more than three hundred, again petitioned the emperor,
recounting the services of Jews to the imperial house, and showing
all the accusations against them to be groundless, at all events not
proven. They did not shrink from declaring that to be a Jew could not
be called a crime, and protested that they ought to be treated as
Roman citizens, who ought not to be summarily expelled. They begged
at least for a respite until the next meeting of the Reichstag. Even
this petition, in which they referred to the difficulty of finding a
refuge, if the emperor, the ruler of half of Europe, rejected them,
remained without effect. All had to depart; only one family, that of
the court factor, Marcus Schlesinger Jaffa, was allowed to remain in
Vienna, on account of services rendered. The Jesuits were full of joy,
and proclaimed the praise of God in a gradual. The magistrates bought
the Jews' quarter from the emperor for 100,000 florins, and called it
Leopoldstadt in his honor. The site of the synagogue was used for a
church, of which the emperor laid the corner-stone (August 18, 1670)
in honor of his patron saint. A golden tablet was to perpetuate the
shameful deeds of the Jews:
"After the Jews were banished, the emperor caused their
synagogue, which had been as a charnel-house, to be made into a
house of God."
The tablet, however, only proves the mental weakness of the emperor and
his people. The Talmud school (Beth ha-Midrash) was likewise converted
into a church, and named in honor of the empress and her patron saint.
But this dark picture had also its bright side. A struggling state,
which hitherto had not tolerated the Jews, now became a new, though
not very hospitable, home, where the Jewish race was rejuvenated. The
Austrian exiles dispersed in various directions. Many sought protection
in Moravia, Bohemia, and Poland. Others went to Venice and as far
as the Turkish frontiers, others turned to Fürth, in Bavaria. Fifty
families were received by Elector Frederick William, in the Mark of
Brandenburg. This great prince, who laid the solid foundation for the
future greatness of the Prussian monarchy, was not more tolerant than
other princes of Louis XIV's century; but he was more clear-sighted
than Emperor Leopold, and recognized that a sound state of finances is
essential to the prosperity of a state, and that Jews retained somewhat
of their old renown as financiers. In the Mark of Brandenburg no Jew
had been allowed to dwell for a hundred years, since their expulsion
under Elector John George. Frederick William himself took the step so
difficult for many; he wrote (April, 1670) to his ambassador, Andrew
Neumann, at Vienna, that he was inclined to receive into the electoral
Mark from forty to fifty prosperous Jewish families of the exiles
from Vienna under certain conditions and limitations. The conditions,
made known a year later, proved in many points very harsh, but were
more favorable than in other Protestant countries, as, for instance,
in the bigoted city of Hamburg. The Jews might settle where they
pleased in Brandenburg and in the duchy of Crossen, and might trade
everywhere without hindrance. The burgomasters were directed to place
no impediment in the way of their settlement and not to molest them.
Every family had to pay eight thalers a year as a protective tax, a
gold florin for every marriage, and the same for every funeral; on the
other hand, they were freed from the poll-tax throughout the country.
They might buy and build houses, on condition that after the expiration
of a term they sell them to Christians. They were not permitted to have
synagogues, but could have prayer-rooms, and appoint a school-master
and a butcher (Shochet). This charter of protection was valid for only
twenty years, but a prospect was held out that it would be prolonged
by the elector or his successor. Of these fifty Austrian families, some
seven settled in Berlin, and formed the foundation of the community
afterwards so large and influential. One step led to another. Frederick
William also admitted rich Jews from Hamburg, Glogau, and other cities,
and thus communities sprang up at Landsberg and Frankfort-on-the-Oder.
It is evident that Frederick William admitted the Jews purely from
financial considerations. But he occasionally showed unselfish goodwill
towards some. When he agreed to the quixotic plan of Skytte, a Swedish
royal councilor, to found, at Tangermünde in the Mark, a university for
all sciences and an asylum for persecuted savants, he did not fail,
according to his programme, to admit into this Athens of the Mark,
Jewish men of learning, as well as Arabs and unbelievers of every kind,
but on condition that they should keep their errors to themselves, and
not spread them abroad.
At another spot in Christian Europe a few rays of light pierced the
darkness. About the same time that the Jews were expelled from Vienna,
a false accusation, which might have had far-reaching consequences,
cropped up against the Jews of a city recently brought under French
rule. In Metz, a considerable community had developed in the course
of a century from four Jewish families, and had appointed its own
rabbi since the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Jews of Metz
behaved so well that King Louis XIV publicly declared his satisfaction
with them, and renewed their privileges. But as Metz at that time still
had a German population, narrow guilds continued to exist, and these
insisted upon limiting the Jews in their occupations. Thwarted by the
magistrates, some of them roused in the populace a burning hatred of
the Jews. A peasant had lost a child, and the news was quickly spread
that the Jews had killed it to practice sorcery with its flesh.
The accusation was brought specifically against a peddler, Raphael
Levi. Scraps of paper with Hebrew letters, written by him during his
imprisonment, served as proofs of his guilt. A baptized Jew, Paul du
Vallié (Vallier, formerly Isaac), son of a famous physician in that
district, with the aid of another Jewish convert, translated the scraps
to the disadvantage of the accused.
Du Vallié had literally been decoyed into Christianity, and changed
into a bitter enemy of his former co-religionists. He had been a good
son, adored by his parents. He had also been a pious Jew, and had
declared to two tempters who had tried to influence him to apostatize
from Judaism that he would sooner be burned. Nevertheless, the priests
continued their efforts until they induced him to accept Christianity.
The news of his baptism broke the heart of his mother, Antoinette. A
touching letter to her son, in French, is still extant, in which she
entreats him to return to Judaism. Du Vallié however refused, and
proved himself besides to be a bad man and a traitor. He brought false
evidence against the poor accused Jew. Accordingly, Raphael Levi was
stretched on the rack, and, though he maintained his innocence in the
tone of convincing truth, he was condemned by the Metz parliament, and
put to death with torture, which he resolutely bore (January, 1670).
The parliament intended to continue the persecution. The enemies of
the Jews, moreover, caused a document on the subject to be printed
and widely circulated, in order to produce the proper effect. But the
Metz community found a supporter in a zealous fellow-believer, Jonah
Salvador, a tobacco dealer, of Pignerol. He was learned in the Talmud,
and a follower of Sabbataï Zevi. Richard Simon, an eager student,
sought him out in order to study Hebrew under his guidance. Jonah
Salvador managed to interest this Father of the Oratory in the Metz
community, and inspired him to draw up a vindication of the Jews
respecting child-murder. The tobacco merchant of Pignerol delivered
this document to persons at court whose word had weight, and this
turned the scale. The king's council ordered the records of the Metz
parliament to be sent in, and decided (end of 1671) that judicial
murder had been committed in the case of Raphael Levi. Louis XIV
ordered that henceforth criminal charges against Jews be brought before
the king's council.
Inhuman treatment of Jews, banishment, false accusations against
them, and massacres did not actually cease, but their number and
extent diminished. This phenomenon was a consequence of the increasing
civilization of the European capitals, but a growing predilection for
the Jews and their brilliant literature had a share in their improved
treatment. Educated Christians, Catholics as well as Protestants, and
sober, unbiased men, whose judgment had weight, began to be astonished
at the continued existence of this people. How was it that a people,
persecuted for ten centuries and more, trampled under foot, and treated
like a pack of venomous or noisome beasts--a people without a home,
whom all the world treated roughly--how was it that this people still
existed--not only existed, but formed a compact body, separate from
other peoples, even in its subjection too proud to mingle with more
powerful nations? Numerous writers appeared as apologists for the Jews,
urging their milder treatment, and appealing earnestly to Christians
not to destroy or disfigure this living marvel. Many went very far in
their enthusiasm for the Jews. The Huguenot preacher, Pierre Jurieu,
at Rotterdam, wrote a book (1685) on "The Fulfillment of Prophecy," in
which he expounded the future greatness of the Jews as certain--that
God had kept this nation for Himself in order to do great wonders for
it: the true Antichrist was the persecution of Jews. A Dane, Oliger
(Holger) Pauli, displayed over-zealous activity for the return of the
Jewish people to their former country. As a youth, he had had visions
of the coming greatness of Israel, in which he also was to play a part.
Oliger Pauli was so fond of the Jewish race that, although descended
from Christian ancestors of noble rank, he always gave out that he had
sprung from Jewish stock. He had amassed millions as a merchant, and
spent them lavishly on his hobby, the return of the Jews to Palestine.
He sent mystical letters to King William III of England and the dauphin
of France to induce them to undertake the assembling and restoration of
the Jews. To the dauphin the Danish enthusiast plainly declared that by
zeal for the Jews, France might atone for her bloody massacre of St.
Bartholomew and the dragonnades. John Peter Speeth of Augsburg, born of
Catholic parents at Vienna, went still farther in his enthusiasm for
Jews and Judaism. After writing a pamphlet in honor of Catholicism, he
went over to the Socinians and Mennonites, and at last became a Jew at
Amsterdam, and took the name of Moses Germanus (died April 17, 1702).
He confessed that precisely the false accusations against Jews had
inspired him with disgust for Christianity.
"Even at the present time much of the same sort of thing
happens in Poland and Germany, where circumstantial tales are
told and songs sung in the streets, how the Jews have murdered
a child, and sent the blood to one another in quills for the
use of their women in childbirth. I have discovered this
outrageous fraud in time, and abandoned Christianity, which
can permit such things, in order to have no share in it, nor
be found with those who trample under foot Israel, the first
begotten Son of God, and shed his blood like water."
Moses Germanus was Paul reversed. The latter as a Christian, became a
zealous despiser of Judaism; the former, as a Jew, an equally fanatical
opponent of Christianity. He regarded its origin as gross fraud.
One cannot even now write all that Moses Germanus uttered about the
teaching of Jesus. He was not the only Christian who at this time
"from love for Judaism" exposed himself to the painful operation and
still keener shame and reproach of circumcision. In one year three
Christians, in free Amsterdam to be sure, went over to Judaism, amongst
them a student from Prague.
Even more than the anticipated greatness of Israel, Jewish literature
attracted learned Christians, and inspired them with a sort of sympathy
for the people out of whose mine such treasures came. The Hebrew
language was studied by Christians even more than in the beginning
of the seventeenth century. In the middle and towards the close of
that century Hebrew Rabbinical literature was most eagerly searched,
translated into Latin or modern languages, quoted, utilized, and
applied. "Jewish learning" was, not as before a mere ornament, but
an indispensable element, of learning. It was regarded as a disgrace
for Catholic and Protestant theologians to be ignorant of Rabbinical
lore, and the ignorant could defend themselves only by abusing these
Hebraists as semi-rabbis.
The first Catholic critic, Father Richard Simon, of the congregation
of the Oratory at Paris, contributed very much to the high esteem in
which the Jews and their literature were held. This man, who laid
the foundation of a scientific, philological, and exegetical study
of the Old and New Testament, investigated Jewish writings with
great zeal, and utilized them for his purpose. He was gifted with a
keen understanding, which unconsciously led him beyond the limits of
Catholic doctrine. Spinoza's criticism of the Bible induced him to
make original inquiries, and since, as a genuine Frenchman, he was
endowed with sound sense rather than metaphysical imagination, he was
more successful, and his method is thoroughly scientific. Richard
Simon was disgusted with the biblical exegesis of the Protestants,
who were wont to support their wisdom and their stupidity with verses
of Holy Scripture. He undertook, therefore, to prove that the
biblical knowledge and biblical exegesis of the Protestant church,
on which it prided itself before Catholics and Jews, was mere mist
and error, because it mistook the sense of the original text, and had
no conception of the historical background, the coloring of time and
place, of the books of the Bible, and in this ignorance multiplied
absurd dogmas.
"You Protestants appeal to the pure word of God to do battle
against the Catholic tradition; I intend to withdraw the ground
from under you, and to leave you, so to speak, with your legs
dangling in the air."
Richard Simon was the predecessor of Reimarus and David Strauss. The
Catholics applauded him--even the mild Bishop Bossuet, who at first
had opposed him from conceit--not dreaming that they were nourishing
a serpent in their bosom. In his masterpiece, "The Critical History of
The Old Testament," he set himself to prove that the written word in
no way suffices for faith. Richard Simon appreciated with a master's
eye, as no one before him, the wide extent of a new science--biblical
criticism. Although he criticised freely, he proceeded apologetically,
vindicated the sacred character of the Bible, and repelled Spinoza's
attacks upon its trustworthiness. Richard Simon's writings, which were
composed not in Latin, but in the vernacular, were marked by a certain
elegance of style, and attracted well-deserved attention. They form an
agreeable contrast to the chaos of oppressive learning of the time, and
have an insinuative air about them. Hence they were eagerly read by the
educated classes, even by women. Simon accorded much space to Jewish
literature, and subjoined a list of Jewish writers. By this means
Rabbinical literature became known to the educated more than through
the efforts of Reuchlin, Scaliger, the two Buxtorfs, and the learned
men of Holland who wrote in Latin.
To gain a comprehensive knowledge of this literature, Richard Simon
was obliged, like Reuchlin before him, to seek intercourse with Jews;
in particular he associated with Jonah Salvador, the Italian Sabbatian.
By this means he lost a part of his prejudice against Jews, which
still existed in France in its intensity. He was drawn to Jews in
another direction. Laying stress on Catholic tradition as opposed to
the literal belief of the Protestants, he felt in some degree related
to the Talmudists and Rabbanites. They also upheld their tradition
against the literal belief of the Karaites. Richard Simon, therefore,
exalted Rabbinical Judaism in the introduction and supplements which
he added to his translation of Leo Modena's "Rites." Familiar with the
whole of Jewish literature as few of his time or of a later period,
Richard Simon refrained from making the boastful assertion, grounded
upon ignorance, that Christianity is something peculiar, fundamentally
different to Judaism and far more exalted. He recognized, and had the
courage to declare, the truth that Christianity in its substance and
form was molded after the pattern of Judaism, and would have to become
like it again.
"Since the Christian religion has its origin in Judaism, I
doubt not that the perusal of this little book (the 'Rites')
will contribute to the understanding of the New Testament, on
account of its similarity to, and close connection with the
Old. They who composed it were Jews, and it can be explained
only by means of Judaism. A portion of our ceremonies also
are derived from the Jews.... The Christian religion has this
besides in common with the Jewish, that each is based on Holy
Scripture, on the tradition of the fathers, on traditional
habits and customs.... One cannot sufficiently admire the
modesty and devotion of the Jews, as they go to prayer in
the morning.... The Jews distinguish themselves, not only by
prayers, but also by deeds of mercy, and one thinks one sees,
in their sympathy for the poor, the image of the love of the
first Christians for their brethren. Men obeyed in those times
what the Jews have retained to this day, while we (Christians)
have scarcely kept up the remembrance of it."
Richard Simon almost deplored that the Jews, formerly so learned in
France, who looked upon Paris as their Athens, had been driven out
of that country. He defended them against the accusation of their
hatred of Christians, and emphasized the fact that they pray for the
welfare of the state and its princes. His predilection for tradition
went so far, that he maintained that the college of cardinals at
Rome, the supreme court of Christendom, was formed on the pattern
of the Synhedrion at Jerusalem, and that the pope corresponded to
the president, the Nassi. Whilst he compared the Catholics to the
Rabbanites, he called the Protestants Karaites, and jestingly wrote
to his Protestant friends, "My dear Karaites." It has been mentioned
that Richard Simon interested himself zealously in the Jews of Metz,
when they were accused of murdering a Christian child. When other
opportunities offered, he defended the Jews against false accusations
and suspicions. A baptized Jew, Christian Gerson, who had become
a Protestant pastor, at the beginning of the seventeenth century,
in order to vilify the Talmud, had made extracts in the shape of
ridiculous legends, printed and published in many editions. Richard
Simon wrote to a Swiss, about to translate these German extracts into
French, that Gerson was not guiltless of having passed off plays upon
words and purely allegorical expressions in the Talmud as serious
narratives. Gerson imputed to the whole Jewish nation certain errors,
accepted only by the credulous, unable to distinguish fiction from
fact, and he, therefore, abused the Talmud. It must not be forgotten
that it was a distinguished ecclesiastic, moreover, a sober, moderate
man, who spoke thus favorably of Judaism. His books and letters,
written in a lively French style, and much read by the educated world,
gained many friends for Judaism, or at least lessened the number of
its enemies. The official Catholic world, however, appears to have
reprimanded this eulogist of Judaism, and Richard Simon, who loved
peace, was obliged partially to recant his praises.
"I have said too much good of this wretched nation, and through
intercourse with some of them I have since learned to know
them."
This cannot have been spoken from his heart, for he was not wont to
judge a whole class of men by a few individuals.
The attention paid to Jews and their literature by Christian scholars
and princes here and there produced droll occurrences. In Sweden, the
most bigoted Protestant country, no Jew and no Catholic were allowed
to dwell. Nevertheless King Charles XI felt extraordinary interest
in the Jews, still more in the Karaites, who pretended to follow the
simple word of God without the accretion of traditions, and were said
to bear great resemblance to the Protestants. Would it not be easy
to bring over to Christianity these people who were not entangled in
the web of the Talmud? Charles XI accordingly sent a professor of
Upsala, learned in Hebrew literature, Gustavus Peringer of Lilienblad
(about 1690), to Poland for the purpose of seeking out the Karaites,
informing himself of their manner of life and their customs, and
especially buying their writings without regard to cost. Provided with
letters of recommendation to the king of Poland, Peringer went first
to Lithuania, where dwelt several Karaite communities. But the Polish
and Lithuanian Karaites were even more degraded than their brethren in
Constantinople, the Crimea, and Egypt. There were very few among them
who knew any details about their origin and the history of their sect;
not one had accurate information. At about this time the Polish king,
John Sobieski, had ordered, through a Karaite judge, Abraham ben Samuel
of Trok, who was in favor with him, that the Karaites, for some unknown
object, scatter from their headquarters of Trok, Luzk, and Halicz, and
settle also in other small towns; they obeyed, and dispersed as far as
the northern province of Samogitia. These Polish Karaites, cut off from
their center, isolated, avoiding intercourse with rabbis, and mixing
only with the Polish rustic population, became more and more boorish,
and sank into profound lethargy.
Whether Peringer even partially fulfilled the wish of his king is not
known; probably he altogether failed in his mission. Some years later
(1696-1697), two learned Swedes, probably also commissioned by Charles
XI, traveled in Lithuania to visit Karaite communities and buy up their
writings. At the same time they invited Karaites to visit Sweden, and
give information respecting their doctrines. Zeal for conversion had
certainly more share in the matter than curiosity about the unknown.
A young Karaite, Samuel ben Aaron, who had settled at Poswol in
Samogitia, and understood some Latin, resolved to make a journey to
Riga, and hold a conference with John Puffendorf, a royal official.
Through want of literary sources and the ignorance of the Karaites
concerning the origin and development of their sect, Samuel ben Aaron
could give only a scanty account in a work, the title of which proves
that fancifulness had penetrated also to Karaite circles.
From another side the Karaites were the object of eager inquiry. A
professor at Leyden, Jacob Trigland, fairly well acquainted with Hebrew
literature, who intended to write a book about the old Jewish sects, no
longer in existence, had his attention directed to the still existing
Karaites. Inspired by the wish to get information concerning the Polish
Karaites and obtain possession of their writings, he sent a letter with
various questions through well-known mercantile houses to Karaites, to
which he solicited an answer. This letter accidentally fell into the
hands of a Karaite, Mordecai ben Nissan, at Luzk, a poor official of
the community, who did not know enough to give the desired information
as to the beginning and cause of the schism between Rabbanites and
Karaites. He regarded it as a point of honor to avail himself of this
opportunity to bring the forgotten Karaites to the remembrance of the
educated world through the instrumentality of a Christian writer,
and to deal blows at their opponents, the Rabbanite Jews. He spared
no sacrifice to procure the few books by which he might be able to
instruct himself and his correspondent Trigland. These materials,
however, were not worth much, and Mordecai's dissertation for Trigland
proved unsatisfactory, but for want of a better work it had the good
fortune to serve during nearly a century and a half as the only source
for the history of Karaism. Some years later, when Charles XII, the
hero of the north, conquered Poland in his victorious career, and like
his father was anxious to have more precise intelligence respecting
Karaites, he also made inquiries concerning them. Mordecai ben Nissan
used this occasion to compose a work in Hebrew for Charles XII, in
which he freely indulged his hatred against Rabbanites, and strained
every nerve to make Talmudical literature ridiculous.
The zealous attention paid by Christian scholars to Jewish literature
could not fail to cause annoyance and inconvenience to Jews. They
felt sorely burdened by German Protestant literati, who, acquiring
cumbersome learning, strove to rival the Dutch writers and Richard
Simon in France, without possessing their mild and gentle toleration
towards Jews, or their elegance of style. Almost at the same time
three German Hebraists, Wülfer, Wagenseil, and Eisenmenger, used their
knowledge of Hebrew literature to bring accusations against the Jews.
All three associated much with Jews, learned from them, and devoted
much study to Jewish literature, mastering it to a certain degree.
John Wülfer of Nuremberg, who was educated for the church, and had
studied with a Jew of Fürth and afterwards in Italy, thoroughly
acquainting himself with biblical and Talmudical literature, sought
after Hebrew manuscripts and old Jewish prayer-books to found an
accusation against the Jews. Christians, instigated by baptized Jews,
took offense at a beautiful prayer (Alenu), which arose in a time and
country in which Christianity was little known. Some Jews were wont to
add a sentence to this prayer: "For they (the heathen) pray unto vanity
and emptiness." In the word "emptiness," enemies of the Jews pretended
to see an allusion to Jesus and to find blasphemy against him. The
sentence was not printed in the prayer-books, but in many copies a
blank space was left for it. This vacant space, or the presence of the
obnoxious word, equally enraged the Protestants, and Wülfer, therefore,
searched libraries to find authority for it, and when he found the word
in manuscripts, he did not fail to publish his discovery. He praised
Prince George of Hesse because he made his Jews swear an oath never
to utter a blasphemous word against Jesus, and threatened to punish
them with death in case of transgression. Wülfer, on the other hand,
was candid enough to confess that the Jews had been long and cruelly
persecuted by Christians, that the accusation against them of using
blood was a mischievous invention, and that the testimony of baptized
Jews deserved little credence.
John Christopher Wagenseil, a lawyer and professor at Altorf, was a
good-hearted man, and kindly disposed towards the Jews. He had traveled
farther than Wülfer, had penetrated through Spain into Africa, and
took the greatest pains to hunt up such Jewish writings as attacked
Christianity from the ground of Holy Scripture or with the weapons of
reason. His discoveries filled his quiver "with the fiery darts of
Satan." Wagenseil looked up that insipid compilation of the magical
miracles of Jesus (Toldoth Jesho), with which a Jew, who had been
persecuted by Christians, tried to revenge himself on the founder of
Christianity, and he spent much money in hunting up this Hebrew parody
of the Gospel. Few Jews possessed copies of it, and the owners kept
them under lock and key for their own security. Because one Jew had
once written these absurdities about Jesus, and some Jews had copies
of the book in their possession, while others had defended themselves
against attacks by Christians, Wagenseil felt assured that the Jews
of his time were vile blasphemers of Jesus. He therefore implored
the princes and civil magistrates to forbid the Jews most strictly
to continue such blasphemy. He directed a pamphlet, "The Christian
Denunciation," to all high potentates, urging them to impose a formal
oath upon Jews, not to utter any word of mockery against Jesus, Mary,
the cross, the mass, and other Christian sacraments. Wagenseil had
two pious wishes besides. One was that the Protestant princes should
take active steps for the conversion of the Jews. He had, it is true,
convinced himself that at Rome, where since the time of Pope Gregory
XIII a Dominican monk was wont on certain Sabbaths to hold forth, in
a sleepy manner, before a number of Jews, they either ignored him
or mocked at him. But he thought that the Protestant princes, more
zealous Christians than the Catholics, ought to devise a better plan.
It also grieved this thorough scholar that the colleges of rabbis
presumed to criticise writings concerning the Jewish religion, and
that they ventured to express their approval or disapproval; this was
an infringement of the rights and the dignity of Christians! Withal
Wagenseil, as has been said, was kindly disposed to the Jews. He
remarked with emphasis that he thought it wrong and unworthy to burn
Jews, to rob them of all their property, or to drive them with their
wives and children out of the country. It was excessively cruel that in
Germany and other countries children of Jews should be baptized against
the will of their parents, and compelled to accept Christianity. The
oppressions and insults to which they were exposed at the hands of the
Christian rabble were by no means to be approved. It was not right that
they were compelled to say "Christ is risen," that they were assailed
with blows, had dirt and stones thrown at them, and were not allowed to
go about in safety. Wagenseil wrote a pamphlet to expose the horrible
falsehood of the charge, that the Jews use the blood of Christians.
For the sake of this pamphlet, which spoke so warmly for the Jews,
his other absurdities should be pardoned. Wagenseil expressed his
indignation at the horrible lie:
"It might pass if the matter stopped with idle gossip; but
that on account of this execrable falsehood Jews have been
tormented, punished, and executed by thousands, should have
moved even stones to compassion, and made them cry out."
Is it credible that in the face of this judgment, spoken with firm
conviction by Wülfer and Wagenseil, who not only had associated with
Jews for years, but were accurately acquainted with Jewish literature,
and had penetrated into its innermost recesses as none before them,
their contemporaries should seriously revive the horrible falsehood,
and justify it with ostentatious learning? A Protestant, John Andrew
Eisenmenger, professor of Oriental languages, repeated the accusation,
a thousand times branded as false, and furnished posterity with
abundant material for charges against the Jews. Eisenmenger belonged
to the class of insects which sucks poison even out of flowers. In
confidential converse with Jews, pretending that he desired to be
converted to Judaism, and in the profound study of their literature,
which he learned from them, he sought only the dark side of both.
He compiled a venomous book in two volumes, the title of which in
itself was an invitation to Christians to massacre the Jews, and was
synonymous with a repetition of earlier scenes of horror for the Jews.
"Judaism Unmasked; or a Thorough and True Account of the Way
in which the Stubborn Jews frightfully blaspheme and dishonor
the Holy Trinity, revile the Holy Mother of Christ, mockingly
criticise the New Testament, the Evangelists, the Apostles, and
the Christian Religion, and despise and curse to the Uttermost
Extreme the whole of Christianity. Much else besides, either
not at all or very little known, and Gross Errors of the Jewish
Religion and Theology, as well as Ridiculous and Amusing
Stories, herein appear. All proved from their own Books.
Written for the Honest Information of all Christians."
Eisenmenger intended to hurl Wagenseil's "fiery darts of Satan" with
deadly aim at the Jews. If he had merely quoted detached sentences
from the Talmudical and later Rabbinical literature and anti-Christian
writings, translated them, and drawn conclusions from them hostile
to the Jews, he would only have proved his mental weakness. But
Eisenmenger represented most horrible falsehoods, as Wagenseil had
called them, as indisputable facts. He adduced a whole chapter of
proofs showing that it was not lawful for Jews to save a Christian
from danger to life, that the Rabbinical laws command the slaughter
of Christians, and that no confidence should be placed in Jewish
physicians, nor ought their medicines to be taken. He repeated all
the false stories of murders committed by Jews against Christians, of
the poisoning of wells by Jews at the time of the Black Death, of the
poisoning of the elector of Brandenburg, Joachim II, by his Jewish
mint-master, of Raphael Levi's child-murder at Metz--in short,
all ever invented by saintly simplicity, priestly fraud, or excited
fanaticism, and imputed to Jews. That the martyrdom of little Simon
of Trent was a fabrication had been clearly proved by the doge and
senate of Venice on authentic documents. Not only the Jewish writers
Isaac Viva and Isaac Cardoso, but also Christians, like Wülfer and
Wagenseil, recognized these documents as genuine, and represented the
charge against the Jews of Trent as a crying injustice. Eisenmenger
was not influenced by that, declared the documents to be forged, and
maintained the bloodthirstiness of Jews with fiery zeal and energy.
One would be justified in ascribing his proceedings against Jews
to brutality or avarice. Although very learned in Hebrew, he was
otherwise uncultured. He was willing to be bribed by solid coin into
silence with regard to the Jews. But for the honor of humanity one
would rather impute his course to blindness; he had lived a long time
at Frankfort-on-the-Main, formerly the center of hatred to Jews in
Germany, and he may there have imbibed his bitter animosity, and have
wished, at first from conscientious motives, to blacken the character
of the Jews.
Some Jews had got wind of the printing of Eisenmenger's work at
Frankfort, and were not a little alarmed at the danger threatening
them. The old prejudices of the masses and the ecclesiastics against
Jews, stronger amongst Protestants than Catholics, still existed too
strongly for a firebrand publication to appear in German without doing
mischief wherever it came. The Jews of Frankfort therefore placed
themselves in communication with the court-Jews at Vienna in order to
meet the danger. Emperor Leopold I, who, at the instigation of the
empress and her father-confessor, had expelled the Jews from Vienna,
being in need of money in consequence of the Turkish wars, fifteen
years later allowed some rich Jews to settle in the capital. Samuel
Oppenheim, of Heidelberg, a banker, one of the noblest of Jews, whose
heart and hand were open to all sufferers, had probably brought about
this concession. As before, several Jewish families, alleged to be
his servants, came with him to Vienna. Samuel Oppenheim zealously
endeavored to prevent the circulation of Eisenmenger's book against
the Jews. He had the same year experienced what a Christian rabble
instigated by hatred of Jews could do. A riotous assault was made upon
his house, which was broken into, and everything there, including the
money-chest, was plundered (July 17, 1700). Hence from personal motives
and on public grounds Samuel Oppenheim exerted himself to prevent
the 2,000 copies of Eisenmenger's work from seeing the light of day.
He and other Jews could justly maintain that the publication of this
book in German, unattractive though its style was, would lead to the
massacre of the Jews. An edict was therefore issued by the emperor
forbidding its dissemination. Eisenmenger was doubly disappointed; he
could not wreak his hatred on the Jews, and he had lost the whole of
his property, which he had spent on the printing, and was obliged to
incur debts. All the copies, except a few which he had abstracted, were
in Frankfort under lock and key. He entered into negotiations with
Jews, and proposed to destroy his work for 90,000 marks. As the Jews
offered scarcely half that sum, the confiscation remained in force, and
Eisenmenger, deceived in all his hopes, died of vexation.
But the matter did not terminate there. Frederick I, the newly-crowned
king of Prussia, took a lively interest in the book. The attention of
this prince was keenly directed to the Jews from various causes. At the
beginning of the eighteenth century more than a thousand Jews dwelt
in his domains. The community of Berlin had grown in thirty years,
since their admission, from twelve to some seventy families. Frederick
I, who was fond of show and pomp, had no particular partiality for
Jews, but he valued them for the income derived from them. The court
jeweler, Jost Liebmann, was highly esteemed at court, because he
supplied pearls and trinkets on credit, and thus held an exceptionally
favorable position. It was said that Liebmann's wife had taken the
fancy of the prince; she later obtained the liberty of entering the
king's apartment unannounced. Through her the Jews received permission
to have a cemetery in Königsberg; but Jewish money was more highly
prized by this king than Jewish favorites. Frederick, who while elector
had thought of banishing the Jews, tolerated them for the safety tax
which they had to pay--100 ducats yearly--but they were subjected
to severe restrictions, amongst others they could not own houses and
lands. Yet they were allowed to have synagogues, first a private one
granted as a favor to the court jeweler Jost Liebmann and the family
of David Riess, an immigrant from Austria, and then, owing to frequent
disputes about rights and privileges, a public synagogue as well.
Two maliciously disposed baptized Jews, Christian Kahtz and Francis
Wenzel, sought to prejudice the new king and the population against
the Jews. "Blasphemy against Jesus"--so runs the lying charge. The
prayer "Alenu" and others were cited as proofs that the Jews pronounced
the name of Jesus with contumely, and that they spat in doing so. The
guilds not being well disposed to the Jews utilized this excitement for
fanatical persecution, and such bitter feeling arose in the cities and
villages against the Jews, that (as they expressed themselves, perhaps
knowingly exaggerating) their life was no longer safe. King Frederick
proposed a course which does honor to his good heart. He issued a
command (December, 1700) to all the presidents of departments to call
together the rabbis and, in default of them, the Jewish school-masters
and elders on a certain day, and ask them on oath whether, in uttering
or silently using the blasphemous word "va-rik," they applied it to
Jesus. The Jews everywhere solemnly declared on oath that they did
not refer to Jesus in this prayer at the place where the lacuna was
left in the prayer-books. John Henry Michaelis, the theologian, of
Halle, who was asked respecting the character of the Jews, pronounced
them innocent of the blasphemy of which they were accused. As the
king continued to suspect the Jews of reviling Jesus in thought, he
issued orders characteristic of the time (1703). He said that it was
his heart's wish to bring the people of Israel, whom the Lord had
once loved and chosen as His peculiar possession, into the Christian
communion. He did not, however, presume to exercise control over their
consciences, but would leave the conversion of the Jews to time and
God's wise counsel. Nor would he bind them by oath to refrain from
uttering in prayer the words in question. But he commanded them on pain
of punishment to refrain from those words, to utter the prayer "Alenu"
aloud, and not to spit while so doing. Spies were appointed to visit
the synagogues from time to time, as eleven centuries before in the
Byzantine empire, in order to observe whether this concluding prayer
was pronounced aloud or in a whisper.
Eisenmenger before his death, and his heirs after him, knowing that
the king of Prussia was inclined to listen to accusations against
the Jews, had applied to him to entreat Emperor Leopold to release
the book against the Jews, entitled "Judaism Unmasked," from ban and
prohibition. Frederick I interested himself warmly in the matter,
and sent a kind of petition to Emperor Leopold I (April 25, 1705)
very characteristic of the tone of that time. The king represented
that Eisenmenger had sunk all his money in this book, and had died
of vexation at the imperial prohibition. It would seem a lowering of
Christianity if the Jews were so powerful as to be able to suppress a
book written in defense of Christianity and in refutation of Jewish
errors. There was no reason to apprehend, as the Jews pretended, that
it would incite the people to a violent onslaught against them, since
similar writings had lately appeared which had done them no harm.
Eisenmenger's book aimed chiefly at the promotion of Christianity, so
that Christians might not, as had repeatedly happened some years ago,
be induced to revolt from it and become adherents of Judaism. But
Emperor Leopold would not remove the ban from Eisenmenger's book. King
Frederick repeated his request three years later, at the desire of
Eisenmenger's heirs, to Emperor Joseph I. With him also King Frederick
found no favorable hearing, and the 2,000 copies of "Judaism Unmasked"
remained at Frankfort under ban for forty years. But with Frederick's
approval a second edition was brought out at Königsberg, where the
imperial censorship had no power. For the moment it had no such effect
as the one side had hoped and the other feared; but, later on, when the
rights of Jews as men and citizens were considered, it proved an armory
for malicious or indolent opponents.
King Frederick I was often urged by enemies of the Jews to make his
royal authority a cloak for their villainy. The bright and the dark
side of the general appreciation of Jewish literature appeared clearly.
In Holland, likewise a Protestant country, a Christian scholar of this
period cherished great enthusiasm for the Mishna, the backbone of
Talmudical Judaism. William Surenhuysius, a young man of Amsterdam, in
the course of many years translated the Mishna with two commentaries
upon it into Latin (printed 1698-1703). He displayed more than the
usual amount of Dutch industry and application. Love certainly was
needed to undertake such a study, persevere in it, and finish the work
in a clear and attractive style. No language and literature present so
many difficulties as this dialect, now almost obsolete, the objects
which it describes, and the form in which it is cast. Surenhuysius sat
at the feet of Jewish teachers, of whom there were many at Amsterdam,
and he was extremely grateful for their help. But their assistance
did not enable him to dispense with industry and devotion. He was
influenced by the conviction that the oral Law, the Mishna, in its
main contents is as divine as the written word of the Bible. He
desired that Christian youths in training for theology and the clerical
profession should not yield to the seductions of classical literature,
but by engaging in the study of the Mishna should, as it were, receive
ordination beforehand.
"He who desires to be a good and worthy disciple of Christ
must first become a Jew, or he must first learn thoroughly the
language and culture of the Jews, and become Moses's disciple
before he joins the Apostles, in order that he may be able
through Moses and the prophets to convince men that Jesus is
the Messiah."
In this enthusiastic admiration for the corner-stone of the edifice
of Judaism, which the builders up of culture were wont to despise,
Surenhuysius included the people who owned these laws. He cordially
thanked the senate of Amsterdam because it specially protected the Jews.
"In the measure in which this people once surpassed all other
peoples, you give it preference, worthy men! The old renown and
dignity, which this people and the citizens of Jerusalem once
possessed, are yours. For the Jews are sincerely devoted to
you, not overcome by force of arms, but won over by humanity
and wisdom; they come to you, and are happy to obey your
republican government."
Surenhuysius was outspoken in his displeasure against those who having
learned what served their interest from the Scriptures of the Jews,
reviled and threw mud at them, "like highwaymen, who, having robbed
an honest man of all his clothes, beat him to death, and send him
away with scorn." He formed a plan to make the whole of Rabbinical
literature accessible to the learned world through the Latin language.
While Surenhuysius of Amsterdam felt such enthusiasm for this, not
the most brilliant, side of Judaism, and saw in it a means to promote
Christianity (in which view he did not stand alone), a vile Polish
Jew, named Aaron Margalita, an apostate to Christianity for the sake
of gain, brought fresh accusations of blasphemy before King Frederick
of Prussia against an utterly harmless part of Jewish literature--
the old Agada. An edition of the Midrash Rabba (1705), published at
Frankfort-on-the-Oder, was accordingly put under a ban by the king's
command, until Christian theologians should pronounce judgment upon it.
The best result of this taste for Jewish literature on the part of
learned Christians, and of the literary works promoted thereby was an
interesting historical work concerning Jews and Judaism, which may be
said to have terminated the old, and foreshadowed a new epoch. Jacob
Basnage (born 1653, died 1723), of noble character, a Protestant
theologian, a solid historian, a pleasant author, and a person held in
high esteem generally, rendered incalculable service to Judaism. He
sifted the results of the laborious researches of scholars, popularized
them, and made them accessible to all educated circles. In his
assiduous historical inquiries, especially as to the development of
the Church, Basnage met Jews at almost every step. He had a suspicion
that the Jewish people had not, as ordinary theologians thought, become
utterly bankrupt through the loss of its political independence and
the spread of Christianity, a doomed victim, the ghost of its former
self. The great sufferings of this people and its rich literature
inspired him with awe. His sense of truth with regard to historical
events would not allow him to dismiss facts or explain them away with
empty phrases. Basnage undertook to compile the history of the Jews or
the Jewish religion, so far as it was known to him, from Jesus down to
his own times. He labored on this work for more than five years. It
was intended to continue the history of the Jewish historian Flavius
Josephus after the dispersion of the Jewish people. Basnage strove, as
far as was possible for a staunch Protestant at that time, to present
and judge events in an impartial manner.
"Christians may not be surprised that we often acquit the
Jews of crimes of which they are not guilty, since justice
so requires. No partiality is implied in accusing those of
injustice and oppression who have been guilty of them. We
have no intention to injure the Jews any more than to flatter
them.... In the decay and dregs of centuries men have adopted
a spirit of cruelty and barbarism towards the Jews. They were
accused of being the cause of all the disasters which happened,
and charged with a multitude of crimes of which they never
even dreamed. Numberless miracles were invented to convict
them, or rather the better to satisfy hatred under the shade
of religion. We have made a collection of laws, which councils
and princes published against them, by means of which people
can judge of the malice of the former and the oppression of
the latter. Men did not, however, confine themselves to the
edicts, but everywhere military executions, popular riots,
and massacres took place. Yet, by a miracle of Providence,
which must excite the astonishment of all Christians, this
hated nation, persecuted in all places for a great number of
centuries, still exists everywhere.... Peoples and kings,
heathens, Christians, and Mahometans, opposed to one another in
so many points, have agreed in the purpose of destroying this
nation, and have not succeeded. The bush of Moses, surrounded
by flames, has ever burned without being consumed. The Jews
have been driven out of all the cities of the world, and this
has only served to spread them abroad in all cities. They still
live in spite of the contempt and hatred which follow them
everywhere, while the greatest monarchies have fallen, and are
known to us only by name."
Basnage, who by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes through the
Catholic intolerance of Louis XIV was banished to Holland, could to
some degree appreciate the feelings of the Jews during their long
exile. He had acquired sufficient knowledge of Jewish literature to
consult the authorities in the execution of his work. The historical
works of Abraham ibn Daud, Ibn Yachya, Ibn Verga, David Gans, and
others were not neglected; they served Basnage as building material
wherewith to rear the great fabric of Jewish history of the sixteen
centuries since the origin of Christianity.
But Basnage was not sufficiently an artist to unroll before the eye in
glowing colors, even if in images fleeting as the mist, the sublime
or tragic scenes of Jewish history. Nor had he the talent to mass
together or marshal in groups and detachments facts widely scattered
in consequence of the peculiar course of this people's history.
One can feel in Basnage's presentation that he was oppressed and
overpowered by the superabundance of details. He jumbled together times
and occurrences in motley confusion, divided the history into two
unnatural halves, the East and the West, and described in conjunction
events without connection. Of the deep inner springs of the life and
deeds of the nation he had no comprehension. His Protestant creed
hindered him; he saw Jewish history only through the thick mist of
Church history. Despite his efforts to be impartial and honest, he
could not rid himself of the belief that the "Jews are rejected because
they have rejected Jesus." In short, Basnage's "History of the Religion
of the Jews" has a thousand faults. Hardly a single sentence can be
regarded as perfectly just and in accordance with the truth.
Yet the appearance of this work was of great importance to the Jews.
It circulated in the educated world a mass of historical information,
crude and distorted though it was, because it was written in the
fashionable French language, and this seed shot up everywhere
luxuriantly. A people, which, despite bloody persecutions, without
a home, with no spot on the whole earth where it could lay its head
or place its foot, yet possessed a history not wholly devoid of
splendor--such a people was not like a gipsy horde, but must find
ever-increasing consideration. Without his knowledge or intention, even
whilst casting many an aspersion upon the Jewish race, Basnage paved
the way to raising it from its abject condition. Christian Theophilus
Unger, a pastor in Silesia, and John Christopher Wolf, professor of
Oriental languages in Hamburg, who were busily and earnestly engaged in
the study of Jewish literature and history, became Basnage's disciples,
and without his work could not have effected so much as they did in
this field. Both, especially Wolf, filled many gaps which Basnage had
left, and evinced a certain degree of warmth for the cause.
The admiration, or at least sympathy, felt for the Jews at this time,
induced John Toland (an Irishman, the courageous opponent of fossilized
Christianity) to raise his voice on behalf of their equality with
Christians in England and Ireland. This was the first word spoken
in favor of their emancipation. But the people, in whose favor this
remarkable revulsion of sentiment had taken place in the educated
world, was without knowledge of it, and felt no change in popular
sentiment.